[pp.int.general] WIPO DG mentions Pirate Party in speech to Blue Sky conference

Amelia Andersdotter teirdes at gmail.com
Wed Mar 2 18:09:13 CET 2011

On 02.03.2011 11:39, Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) wrote:
> Dr. Stallman's insistence on this is very well motivated. I have 
> noticed a tremendous attitude shift since I started using words that 
> conveyed the right values.
> As long as we allow people to get with the fuzzy "intellectual 
> property", we will:
> a) be unable to pinpoint the problems with copyrights, patents and 
> other monopolies, as we need to be specific about the problems, and 
> few of these problems apply across all monopoly kinds uniformly

This is downright false. All IPR is now subtituting physical PR and 
acting in the economic development (GDP) and on the market as if they 
were such. This goes for copyrights, patents, trademarks, database 
rights, data test rights(!!!), plant variety rights, cultural heritage 
rights, I may have forgotten something here so please add it to the list 
if you can iamgine.

We should /not/ be separating these different forms of (currently) 
property rights because they show a false market, false economic growth 
based on false or insecurely determined values that are currently only 
functioning as major enterprise safe-guards (yes, ALL of the above, not 
just Universal) if they are collected en masse (imagine big portfolios 
of papers determining which rights effectively can be assumed or 
determined to BELONG TO YOU, just like physical property). they all work 
under licensing agreements, which is something we're increasingly seeing 
with hardware (laptops, consoles, cars, ...) as well.

We should be talking about the problems with licensing (that is, "fake 
selling") or the problems with basing GDP growth on fiction (the only 
problem is that we probably don't /have/ enough property in the world to 
create constant growth so we 'd have to abandon the idea of non-economic 
policies :) but we'd have a policy that /works/ and would be consistent 
with reality rather than one that that makes less insightful people 
believe that we can change the market in a way that the market is 
actually not able to be changed into).

this is my problem with Stallman, and all people who choose to make the 
same division he do es. I simply do not see any connection to have stuff 
actually are working in the IPR industries and a painful and also naïve 
misconception that we're living pre-NAFTA (1991).


> b) be susceptible to the "stealing" moniker
> c) lose out on the values we convey in using that language, as 
> property is a positive word
> It is for a reason that I never talk about the monopolies as property. 
> Never, ever. Even if other people use that term, I respond talking 
> about "copyrights and patents" if I want to talk broadly.
> *But it goes beyond that.* Words convey more than meaning, they convey 
> association and emotion. Failing to exploit this, when your antagonist 
> does so skillfully and continuously, will marginalize your followers 
> to people unable to feel or communicate emotion. I am sure we can all 
> identify the problems we had at one stage -- or still have, in several 
> contexts -- with getting the message to key extrovert people, social 
> supernodes. *This requires using supernode language.*
> In Sweden, we have managed to turn the people fighting for the 
> copyright monopoly from "artists" to "*the copyright industry*". 
> That's an immensely powerful meme.
> Not "the record industry", not "the music industry". The industry 
> which profits off of the copyright monopoly, pure and simple. "The 
> copyright industry". This meme has now spread to mainstream media, and 
> signals greed and law exploitation. Just talk about "the copyright 
> industry" constantly, and the meme will take hold, as it is a good 
> linguistic catchall for a major player in media.
> You will notice that I'm also constantly talking about *the copyright 
> monopoly*. Not "copyright" but "the copyright monopoly". This is 
> another of those bullets. Any word which is an X-right is, well, a 
> right. Therefore, it is important to turn the word into an adjective 
> describing what it really is: a monopoly.
> "The copyright monopoly" is slowly taking hold, and also works very well.
> Cheers,
> Rick
> On 03/02/2011 10:51 AM, Boris Turovskiy wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> you're extremely predictable, you know that? A Pawlow dog couldn't be as
>> trained as you are in finding every instance of "intellectual property"
>> and ranting about it, completely neglecting the other content.
>> Best,
>> Boris
>>> As one would expect from WIPO, he used the term "intellectual
>>> property" and thus made a statement so broad it hardly even relates to
>>> real criticism.
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net  <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20110302/9a0bc8fb/attachment.html>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list